From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Lovenberg Subject: Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix the kernel release version in the default security warning message Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:38:59 -0400 Message-ID: <4DE91C33.4040307@gmail.com> References: <4DE880E3.8020502@suse.de> <20110603091119.7596fade@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4DE90669.5020108@suse.de> <20110603123739.4875a6e5@corrin.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Suresh Jayaraman , Steve French , linux-cifs To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110603123739.4875a6e5-4QP7MXygkU+dMjc06nkz3ljfA9RmPOcC@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 6/3/2011 12:37 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:36:01 +0530 > Suresh Jayaraman wrote: > >> On 06/03/2011 06:41 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: >>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 >>> Suresh Jayaraman wrote: >>> >>>> When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade >>>> to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman >>>> --- >>>> fs/cifs/connect.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/connect.c b/fs/cifs/connect.c >>>> index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/cifs/connect.c >>>> +++ b/fs/cifs/connect.c >>>> @@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info) >>>> warned_on_ntlm = true; >>>> cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested. The default " >>>> "security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to " >>>> - "ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41"); >>>> + "ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1"); >>>> } >>>> ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg; >>>> >>> Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0? >>> Regardless... >> I thought about this. But, as Linus has already said: >> >> "Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the >> scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is >> calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it >> into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release >> should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for >> their versioning." >> >> I think 3.1 should be ok? >> > Pity -- would have been sort of nice to always use a 3 field version > number since the stable kernels will need that, but...not my call. > Either way, patch is fine. I think 3.0 was being called 3.0.0 officially because some scripts broke without a "major.minor.revision" scheme. At least for the moment, according to Linus' commit message. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=55922c9d1b84b89cb946c777fddccb3247e7df2c